UNITED STATES v. MAULDIN (2019)

Robbie Mauldin appeals his 10-month sentence of imprisonment for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Mauldin’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court committed procedural error by ordering that his federal sentence of imprisonment run consecutively to any potential state sentence.¹ After giving Mauldin credit for time previously served, however, the Board of Prisons released him in September 2019, before his state trial began.

Because Mauldin has served the challenged sentence—and had, in fact, completed the sentence before he was ever tried or sentenced in state court—we cannot afford meaningful relief on the sole issue he raises, even if we were to rule in his favor. Accordingly, this case is moot, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1537, 200 L.Ed.2d 792 (2018); United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991). The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mauldin does not challenge the revocation of supervised release, the length of his revocation sentence, or the reinstatement of his lifetime term of supervised release.

PER CURIAM: